In 2012, an operator releases a network function virtualization (NFV) white paper, and announces that an NFV Industry Standard Group (ISG) is set up in the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The operator sets up the NFV ISG to define a network function virtualization requirement of the operator and a related technical report, and expects to implement some network functions in a general high-performance server, a general switch, and a general memory by using a virtualization technology of an Internet technology (IT) for reference. It is well-known that an NFV technology has its unique NFV standard architecture. In addition, to cope with future competition and challenges and avoid being pipelined, the operator complies with a current development trend of a virtualization technology, a cloud computing technology, and the like, and proposes a new NFV standard architecture.
With continuous development of communications technologies, in the new NFV standard architecture, the NFV technology is applied to diversified services, and services of different types differ in importance and a service requirement. Therefore, to reduce hardware deployment costs, the operator has different requirements for service availability levels of the services of different types. In the prior art, during system establishment, a static pool is divided in advance according to differentiated hardware (such as a physical host and a memory), and deployment is performed. In this way, during service deployment, for the service availability levels of the services of different types, corresponding hardware resources can be configured for services of corresponding types, so as to meet the requirements of the operator for the service availability levels of the services of different types.
It can be learned that in the prior art, resources are divided according to differentiated hardware. However, this is not an end-to-end division method, and a division granularity is large during resource division. Consequently, a service availability level that a resource allocated to a service of a corresponding type can actually provide is greatly different from a service availability level required by an operator, and service availability experience is poor.